Adam Ozimek in today’s Atlantic has a fascinating and respectful analysis of Diane Ravitch’s journey from the education historian “who once wrote so passionately and doggedly in favor of school choice and accountability from the halls of the Hoover Institute” to the “Diane Ravitch who now writes reform criticisms with the hyperbole and one-sidedness of a teacher's union spokesperson":

I think one can criticize Ravitch for failing to follow her remaining Hayekian wisdom and criticisms through to their natural conclusion, or for applying them unevenly. For instance, she criticizes the Gates and other foundations for being a powerful centralized force that overrides the autonomy of local forces, calling them "bastions of unaccountable power" who are not "subject to public oversight or review", and "have taken it upon themselves to reform public education, perhaps in ways that would never survive the scrutiny of voters in any district or state". But she fails to apply the same criticisms to the powerful teachers unions, about whom all of the above could be said, and who lobby state governments for centralized rules that favor their members.